Paul Crête

[Supply, June 1st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I was very surprised to hear the hon. secretary of state for Parliamentary Affairs say, especially at the beginning of his speech, that when the Bloc members go visit the people in their ridings, they are not performing their duties as members of Parliament. I want him to tell me that I was not carrying out my duties as a member of Parliament when I met some fifteen senior citizens of Trois-Rivières to talk about the upcoming old age pension reform and listened to their concerns that the federal government would cut their old age pension as it did with the unemployment insurance benefits.

I think we are acting very properly when we get together with our constituents. This does not stop us from taking the opportunity to talk about the real solutions to these problems that would give the province of Quebec more control over its own development.

When we meet with people who complain about the unemployment situation and tell us that 40 per cent of all new welfare recipients end up on the welfare roll because of the new restrictions put on UI benefits by this new government, which is more Conservative than Liberal, are we not performing our duties as members of Parliament?

When the federal government decides to cut all research and development in sheep production, a promising new industry which is quickly expanding in Quebec and in Canada, and we are asked by the people: "Who took that decision, what is going on in Ottawa? What is wrong with them? Do they have their heads in the clouds? They are cutting R and D", are we not performing our duties as members of Parliament? I think the member for Saint-Léonard should reconsider his position on this issue.

On the other hand, given the centralization efforts of the current government, Quebecers will obviously have a very clear choice to make. This is the most positive aspect of the federal efforts. Everything is quite clear. When they talk about national standards and their willingness to interfere in the day care sector and impose national standards so that Alberta and Quebec are both treated the same way, we realize that their initiative does not make any sense and is doomed from the start.

It does not make sense for the federal government, which has no authority in education, to create a human resources investment fund and, by a devious device, intervene in the area of education instead of reducing unemployment insurance premiums, because less money is needed to finance the unemployment insurance fund, and giving the difference back to the people who do finance the fund. The unemployment insurance scheme is not there as an excuse to create an education department. It is there to provide benefits to workers between jobs. Is this not an intrusion of the federal government where it has no business?

There is also the agreement on internal trade. Let us talk about it. This agreement was signed by all provinces and the federal government. It is designed to ensure that internal trade is at least the equivalent of what we have with NAFTA in external trade. But the federal government tables a bill with the insidious provision that it will be able to rap the provinces on the knuckles if it does not like a decision, if a province does not measure up. It is acting as both judge and jury.

Is that not the return of the steamroller style we first saw in the Trudeau years? Is not the present Liberal government acting as the servant of federal bureaucracy, which is systematically denounced by Canadians as a whole? Everybody in Canada, sovereignists as well as federalists, is fed up with the fact that the federal bureaucratic machine dictates how things should be done, and what Canadians and Quebecers should think. This is why the official opposition is perfectly justified in rising up against it.

When we know that there are 800,000 welfare recipients in Quebec and 1,200,000 in Ontario, it means that it is not only the fault of the government of Quebec, which has been in power for less than a year. When we see that there are 800,000 welfare recipients in Quebec and 1,200,000 in Ontario, does that show that the Canadian system is working? Are the interventions of the federal government producing good results? I believe the member has to recite an act of contrition and reconsider his position.

As I was saying at the beginning of my speech, my question will be on this subject.

In that case, what choice remains to Quebecers but to side with those who want change, those who really want Quebec to be the master of its development? We are talking about the Bloc Quebecois, the Parti Quebecois, and possibly the Action démocratique du Québec party, all of whom want Quebec to be in charge of its own development.

Should not the member for Saint-Léonard try to convince his government to reconsider its positions and to backtrack on this decentralization project which will only lead to more results like Canada's present debt, an absolutely negative result of the Canadian federal system?

[Grand Parents' Day Act, May 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the hon. member for Don Valley North for his bill. Indeed, who could be against a bill aimed at honouring the contribution grandparents make to society by designating the second Sunday in September of each year as "National Grandparent's Day"?

Such bills always put us in the same dilemma. On the one hand, there is the honourable intention of designating a grandparent's day but, on the other hand, we wonder if the government will go beyound good intentions and pay close attention on a daily basis to these seniors who helped build our society.

The old age pension plan is a case in point. As you may recall, there have been previous government attempts to reduce seniors' benefits, and a reform of old age pensions is planned for this fall. In every golden age club, people like the directors in my riding who have already retired or will do so in a few years have a lot of questions about their future financial security.

While it is nice of the hon. member to ask that the second Sunday in September be designated "Grandparents' Day", we should be checking with his government to see if the member's wishes will be acted on and whether these seniors will be guaranteed fair and equitable treatment.

This bill also gives us an opportunity to look at the way seniors are treated sometimes. Take for example the voice box issue. Do we really show seniors respect when they need information about a pension cheque that is late in coming or a in different amount than usual, or any other matter, and we cannot provide it to them? Having dealt myself with the voice box at the Department of Human Resources Development, I can tell you that there is cause for frustration, and serious frustration.

I think that we would show much greater respect for seniors and grandparents by remedying this kind of situation effectively than by simply dedicating one day out of the year to them. We would be showing that we care year-round.

The other example I would like to give you is that of repeated computer errors in recent months. I have received dozens of calls at my office about computer errors, and the problem was from coast to coast. Pensioners were no longer receiving the income supplement they were entitled to. They were not always provided with adequate information in this matter. Again, this is a case where the really respectful thing to do would have been to treat them fairly and with compassion.

At any rate, this bill on grandparents' day is very commendable. We can all dig out an anecdote from our pasts. My paternal grandfather has always been a model of honesty to me. He was a man who wanted the matters he discussed with others to be clear and to get settled. That is something that he taught me and that is now part of my background. Each and every one of us in this House could tell a similar story.

The same is true of my maternal grandmother. I could tell you about her strength of purpose and about how she inspired me through my studies. We have to realize that we are definitely influenced by such role models, and grandparents do make an important contribution to their grandchildren's education. As we get older, we realize the full significance of that contribution, particularly when we know what grandparents have gone through and what a source of wisdom they can be.

Who knows? Having a grandparents' day might trigger a debate on how to better benefit from their experience. I remember my grandfather telling me about voting on conscription during the Second World War, and about the political context of the fifties. The past is a treasure trove of information to help us make decisions, now and in the future.

We often notice that young people lack a sound knowledge of our history. One way to remedy that might be to rely more on the experience of grandparents, who can bring us a lot, in a concrete way, in our daily lives, rather than in terms of our formal history. When we think about the grandparents' contribution, it should not only be in terms of their role with grandchildren, but also with the parents who are sandwiched between the two generations.

In the daily grind of raising children, it is sometimes useful to take time out to turn to grandparents, who have often raised much larger families than those of today and have been through all sorts of situations that have equipped them to give us useful advice.

It seems to me that this bill is a good idea. It is recognition that is only reasonable and which our grandparents deserve. But this recognition should be given in the same spirit year round, it should be reflected in government services for seniors, in our

concern for their basic financial security, so that we are sure that the way they are treated on Grandparents' Day is the way they are treated every day.

I will conclude by saying that in addition to the idyllic images of grandparents that we often see on television, the traditional families, but there are also much more difficult situations. Grandparents are often excluded from family life and live alone in cramped quarters, and I think the setting aside of a national grandparents' day, as with everything to do with the family, would be an opportunity to recognize that there is no one model of a family, any more than there is no one type of grandparent. These seniors have contributed in a variety of ways to the growth of our society.

I hope that by recognizing grandparents' day we will make it possible for values to be transmitted from one generation to another, that we will realize what the past has given us and what we must still seek in order to attain our vision of the future, and it is for these reasons that the members of the Bloc Quebecois support this bill.

[Supply, May 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the last few comments of the hon. member, I cannot resist asking a question.

When we travel abroad, we are frequently asked why Quebecers, with all their potential, have not yet decided to withdraw from the Canadian federation to be more independent like they are in Denmark, Norway, or Sweden. People in those countries control their own development, they know they pay taxes to only one government, and they can easily understand the reasons why they elect representatives.

Let me conclude by saying that, just like members opposite, we have been elected by Quebecers. When we are told that we have not accomplished anything, I have to remind the hon. members that, in a period of two years, the Bloc was elected, which was an obvious sign that something is wrong with the Canadian federation, and a sovereignist government was elected in Quebec. If the federal Parliament cannot grasp that message sent by Quebecers, it must be because it is beyond reform.

[Supply, May 18th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. member and I am somewhat surprised by his paternalistic attitude regarding the claims that are being made.

The claims made by the Quebec government at this stage are about adjustment and correspondence to criteria and things of that nature. We are not here to question the way governments have acted. In that regard, I think that the hon. member's attitude was more or less appropriate when he asked if the gouvernment had acted in a relevant way and when he suggested it should act in such and such a way in another situation.

However, as regards fiscal stabilization, I believe this raises an important substantive issue. We are told that the Quebec government should go to the courts since it received an unqualified refusal from the finance minister. Should we not question the relevancy of a fiscal stabilization agreement in which the federal government is both judge and judged? Indeed, the government will give the money if the claim is considered justified, but the government is also, through the finance minister, the final authority allowing the disbursement.

Should such an agreement not be considered as a form of domineering federalism where the father decides what is good for his children? As if the provinces were the children of the federal government. Should we not ask ourselves something?

Should there not be, for this type of agreement, an independent body which could decide on the relevancy of claims in cases of disagreement between the federal and provincial governments? This way governments could be spared legal battles which entail useless expenses and necessarily lead to political claims, like the ones the Quebec government is making, when one of the parties involved refuses to agree to a claim considered to be justified by the Quebec government.

[Unemployment Insurance Act, May 18th, 1995]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-328, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.

Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to transfer from the Department of National Revenue to the Department of Human Resources Development the responsibility for assessing job insurability under the Unemployment Insurance Program. There are several advantages to doing this. We believe that the larger number of points of service maintained by the Department of Human Resources Development could mean much shorter processing times.

Also, there will be a better understanding of the case at hand, since files will be processed locally by individuals who will then be in a better position to assess particular circumstances. I think this will help develop a fairer rule of construction. That is, at any rate, the spirit in which I table this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Canada Post Corporation Act, May 16th, 1995]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-326, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (membership of board of management).

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is simply to ensure that, in the future, Canada Post Corporation will consider regional development in fulfilling its mandate. We realized that this corporation was very focused on production and did not necessarily take into account the development of each part of the country.

Changing the membership of the board of management would ensure representation from every province and territory in Canada. This would also prevent the concentration that may occur when the people sitting on Canada Post's board of management look after their own interests instead of those of people from the various provinces. That is the purpose of this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Postal Services, May 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, one change is the fact that the program had a budget of $220 million in 1990, compared to $77 million this year. How can the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who claims to be the protector of the Canadian publishing industry, justify such drastic cuts to a program so vital for publishers?

[Postal Services, May 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. In the last budget, the Minister of Finance announced an 8 per cent cut, over a three year period, to the postal program designed to subsidize the distribution of magazines and publications in Quebec and in Canada.

How does the Minister of Canadian Heritage explain that his officials indicated to Canadian publishers that the cut affecting the postal program was 24 per cent over 13 months, instead of 8 per cent over three years, as announced in the budget?

[Lobbyists Registration Act, May 5th, 1995]

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a symbolic example of the situation regarding the ethics counsellor.

I would like to remind you of a sentence which was in the red book of the Liberal Party of Canada. It says: "The integrity of government is put into question when there is a perception that the public agenda is set by lobbyists exercising undue influence away from public view". Hence, what our citizens want, according to the Liberal red book, is better information on the influence of lobbyists.

Opting for an ethics counsellor appointed by the Prime Minister and accountable only to the Prime Minister, is like saying that the person who is going to look into the situation has a direct tie with the one who might be implicated. This shows concretely that Liberals did not go to the core of things and did not deal, in a definite, long term way, with a situation which is unacceptable to the people.

This is something we had been trying to deal with following the last election campaign, and I repeat that Liberals will be accountable to the people for not having used the solutions which, in the end, were the results of a consensus in our society.

Today, the decisions needed are very complex and we have to make sure that things are open enough and that the people who are going to pass judgment have an independence somewhat similar to the one enjoyed by the auditor general. If the auditor general were not independent of the government, do you think that he could systematically report on the government's efficiency like he is now doing? A new auditor general would be brought in before he could get a second report out. The same goes for the ethics counsellor. The Prime Minister will either give him a very limited role or he will simply be obliged to give in to pressure from the lobbyists and, in this way, serve to cloak their activities even more. We have before us a perfect example-the MP's question is quite germane-of the fact that the government did not fulfil its mandate and that is the main reason the Bloc Quebecois will not support this bill.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, May 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the criteria of the government's accountability and independence vis-à-vis lobbyists have not been met. The reasons are outlined in the Bloc Quebecois's minority report which also proposes solutions.

The report prepared by the Reform Party, which believes that the Liberal report has two major shortcomings, namely insufficient disclosure and the way the ethics counsellor is appointed and his accountability, concurs with the report by the Bloc Quebecois as far as these problems are concerned. However, perhaps because of the expertise acquired in Quebec concerning the financing of political parties, the Bloc Quebecois went much further, making some concrete proposals that may improve the situation. Having listed these proposals in my speech, I will not repeat them. But as we are about to enter the next century and we see that governments have less and less control over international decisions and the way things are done, I believe this will be one of the criteria people will use in determining whether their government is doing its best to ensure adequate development for their country.

People can understand that we can no longer control all the variables and that we live in a very complex world, but they will never accept that those variables may be controlled by others than their elected representatives. I believe that, in choosing their representatives, voters will systematically come back to

the following criterion: they will want to make sure that their elected officials really represent them and are not continuously influenced, with varying degrees of transparency, by lobbies that do not reflect the opinions of the electorate.

Having been made aware, since I was elected, of all the twists and turns involved in bringing about a policy decision, it is obvious that what people want is for their elected representatives to have control of what is going on and not simply be the puppets of people who have received no mandate from the voters. I think that the government will have to go back to the drawing board. I do not know whether it will have the courage to do so during this Parliament, but this whole issue will surely remain a fundamental one for voters, and the suggestions that were made by the Bloc Quebecois in its minority report will prove to be an interesting guide in this respect.